My story: when you first-choiced firm did not get back to you in a timely manner

[Riverdale]

I was called back to day 3 by a firm. So I sent my first choice to the HR people and my host at 8:00 pm on Tuesday. However, I did not get any reply. Even after the day 3's interview, they still did not reply to my first choice message directly, but just said something like "we still have positive impressions on you. You did really great. We are going to make a decision in the afternoon". I still did not know if I should revoke my first choice.  

Until noon on Wednesday, I called and wrote a follow-up email to the HR people to "get more information", but again, no response. Then, one person (my last interviewer) got back to me and said that they were seriously considering me, but they could not say anything about my first-choice. It would be generally prudent if I keep my options open. Until then, I was sure I was just on the waitlist. 

I felt bad about their delay of response. If they told me in the day 2 night or even during the day 3's interview, I would still have sometime to switch my first choice to another employer. I also reflected on myself: perhaps, my mistake was that I did not "interpret" their "lack of response" correctly as a negative sign for Day 2.

I was wondering: is it OK or normal for firms to not get back to you in a reasonable time after you first-choiced them? 

 

I ended up receiving a great suprise offer from an employer which I think it is better than my first-choice firm. But I felt there are so much inbalance of bargainging power for students during the in-firm "mind game". I understand firms want the best talents and so they want to keep you on the hook until the last minutes. However, students take much greater risks. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Riverdale

[CleanHands]

You seem to be under the impression that firms should have to show their hand and make a decision about whether to hire a candidate more or less immediately after the candidate uses first choice language, so that if the answer is "no" the candidate can move on and use first choice language with a different firm.

No, that's not how this works, and it's not reasonable to expect it to work that way.

[Diplock]

So, to be clear, you're bothered by the fact that you weren't rejected by your first choice fast enough to go lie to someone else about how they were really your first choice all along? And you're complaining this represents playing "mind games" with you?

I pity whoever had to navigate either asking you, or being asked by you, to prom

Seriously, I get this is a stressful time. But the imbalances you are feeling are not created by arbitrary rules of a game that's skewed against you. At least, not unless you consider the entire economy a game, which it may be, but that isn't the point right now. This is the way it is. And it's not going to change, so get used to it.

[Riverdale]

17 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

You seem to be under the impression that firms should have to show their hand and make a decision about whether to hire a candidate more or less immediately after the candidate uses first choice language, so that if the answer is "no" the candidate can move on and use first choice language with a different firm.

No, that's not how this works, and it's not reasonable to expect it to work that way.

Thank you for your ingishts!

Actually, I did not expect firms to make a decision "immediately" after receiving first choice message. I think it's reasonable for students to at least get some response within a reasonable amount of time, given the significance of "first-choice". The reality is that, students are frequently told by HRs and career advisors that they should be “loyal” to thier first choice firm: you cannot have multiple first choices, and you cannot switch your first choice arbitrarily. 

I really hope the process could be more transparent for candidates. 

[shibainuofthenorth]

Hi OP. I get your frustration but this is a very stressful process by nature. Also congratulations on emerging from it succesfully.

As to your question, the reality is yes this is the norm. An immediate day 2 response is not guaranteed and should not be that way, but my firm generally sends out responses to acknowledge recipient of top-choice languages. Nonetheless, while this is the way of how things work, there are firms thinking about experimenting with the process. It does seem that more firms, including mine, are moving in the direction of making the process clearer for students on day 3 or after the very last interview. 

Not all firms will give a yes or no that's not how things go, but yes, there are firms that experimenting with things and trying to make the process a bit less confusing for everyone. While I cannot speak for other firms, we have received positive feedback from students with our approach and we don't seem to lose out on competitive candidates.

And hey everyone calm down, no need to assume OP is lying. OP seems to have reflected about the process and asked a genuine question. Assuming that he/she straight out lied to firms is not the way to go.

[CleanHands]

4 minutes ago, Riverdale said:

Thank you for your ingishts!

Actually, I did not expect firms to make a decision "immediately" after receiving first choice message. I think it's reasonable for students to at least get some response within a reasonable amount of time, given the significance of "first-choice". The reality is that, students are frequently told by HRs and career advisors that they should be “loyal” to thier first choice firm: you cannot have multiple first choices, and you cannot switch your first choice arbitrarily. 

I really hope the process could be more transparent for candidates. 

I've hired, but not in law. I still feel qualified to tell you that it would be a logistical nightmare for employers to be in any way compelled to commit one way or another early to a candidate based on first choice language. They are interviewing dozens of candidates and need to be able to compile all the info they need and compare everyone against one another. This is not a casual process where they can throw out offers at any point without disruption.

@Diplockalready addressed the point about disingenuousness so I won't belabour that.

Besides, clearly first choice language isn't necessary to receive an offer anyways, as your own experience shows, so I respectfully disagree that this point represents some unfair power imbalance.

[LMP]

I feel for you OP, the rhetoric leading up to in-firms stresses the importance of first choice language, while also making it seem completely sacrosanct. 

I think it can be easy to stress over it, I certianly did. At the same time I think the unfairness you see is partly self-imposed (again, likely due to what others have talked so much about pre-recruit). 

If you tell a firm they're your first choice and they then go silent or indicate to you that you aren't a the top of the list I think it's fair to revoke what you said. To me a changing situation would warrant a change in your preferences. I get it can be hard to push back or be a bit more bold for fear of some industry blacklist. But I think there is a difference between lying or misleading firms and simply responding to new information. If students (and I count myself here) could be better at that the recruit might be a bit less stressful.

[CleanHands]

1 minute ago, LMP said:

If you tell a firm they're your first choice and they then go silent or indicate to you that you aren't a the top of the list I think it's fair to revoke what you said. To me a changing situation would warrant a change in your preferences. I get it can be hard to push back or be a bit more bold for fear of some industry blacklist. But I think there is a difference between lying or misleading firms and simply responding to new information. If students (and I count myself here) could be better at that the recruit might be a bit less stressful.

It is incredibly common for firms to respond in a non-committal way to first choice language (yes, there are exceptions to this going in both directions) and doesn't necessarily indicate there will be no offer, but if a candidate "revokes" first choice language over that that guarantees they won't get an offer from said firm and they may as well just withdraw their application. They will also look like a petulant pissbaby either way and people in different firms know and talk with each other.

So I have to respectfully disagree with this part of your post.

Funny enough, I agree with the first two paragraphs of your post that first choice language is something that students place far more importance on than is merited, but you then undermined that message with your third paragraph where you advocate a rather rash course of action over firms' responses to such language.

[LMP]

1 minute ago, CleanHands said:

It is incredibly common for firms to respond in a non-committal way to first choice language (yes, there are exceptions to this going in both directions) and doesn't necessarily indicate there will be no offer, but if a candidate "revokes" first choice language over that that guarantees they won't get an offer from said firm and they may as well just withdraw their application. They will also look like a petulant pissbaby either way and people in different firms know and talk with each other.

So I have to respectfully disagree with this part of your post.

Funny enough, I agree with the first two paragraphs of your post that first choice language is something that students place far more importance on than is merited, but you then undermined that message with your third paragraph where you advocate a rather rash course of action over firms' responses to such language.

"Advocate" might be a little strong. For clarity, I don't mean that this should be the go to move for students. 

Rather, I'm trying to say that be cognizant of a firms intrests in you and be willing to adjust accordingly. 

"Withdraw" was also the wrong word to use. I don't reccomend actually contacting the firm and saying "I don't like you anymore" but I think if a firm shows disintrest you shouldn't think yourself bound simply because you spoke 4 words to them. 

[Ohshmagoda]

The recruitment guidelines in Vancouver forbid firms from communicating an express intention to make an offer prior to the call time (8:00am on Thursday). The spirit of this rule isn’t followed very well. Nevertheless, and recognizing that Toronto’s process is a bit different on the edges, I’m of the same view as Diplock/CleanHands above. A student with OPs expectations would seemingly be underprepared or misinformed regarding the process they’re participating in.

[Asian Jim]

44 minutes ago, Ohshmagoda said:

The recruitment guidelines in Vancouver forbid firms from communicating an express intention to make an offer prior to the call time (8:00am on Thursday). The spirit of this rule isn’t followed very well. Nevertheless, and recognizing that Toronto’s process is a bit different on the edges, I’m of the same view as Diplock/CleanHands above. A student with OPs expectations would seemingly be underprepared or misinformed regarding the process they’re participating in.

To be fair the guidelines are somewhat of a joke. Almost everyone I knew in Vancouver who received offers from biglaw firms were given language by the recruiters that was as good as an express intention to make an offer. Most recruiters said something along the lines of "You can rest easy tonight ..." when a candidate asked about their standing.

Also, I don't think OP is wrong to be frustrated about the processes of the OCIs. In any other field it is extremely rare to be put in a position where you are given exploding job offers from a singular interview period that happens at the exact same time where you have to say things like "first choice" to a singular firm to secure a job and that language means so much to the firms (some top firms in Toronto incited first choice language from my friends and promptly rejected them when they were not given one). Meaning if you are unable to secure a job from your "first choice" firm, your chances at all other firms are significantly reduced so it matters so much to not waste your first choice on a firm that may not hire you, especially when all the firms are p much the same to one another. The firms put so much emphasis on the "first choice" language that candidates are unable to seriously consider other firms and must commit to a firm and hope that the firm likes them back, and most firms know this so the "first choice" language is often returned or the recruiter makes it clear about their intentions if the candidate is not seriously being considered, so it would be ideal for this process to happen quite promptly.

At the end of the day, I agree that the firms have no obligations to help OP out by replying quickly and I think OP should have definitely revoked his first choice and moved along quickly themselves to salvage their chances at another firm. But the entire process is extremely stressful for the candidates for no good reason and simply absurd. In the US, firms give non-exploding offers to successful candidates so they can weigh out their options and make an informed decision. Whereas in Canada, candidates have to play silly little mind games to secure a position in an environment where firms are not even correctly following the guidelines. But it is what it is.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Asian Jim

[BlockedQuebecois]

2 hours ago, LMP said:

I don't reccomend actually contacting the firm and saying "I don't like you anymore" but I think if a firm shows disintrest you shouldn't think yourself bound simply because you spoke 4 words to them. 

This is poor advice for formal recruits. If you tell a firm they’re your first choice, you should consider yourself bound by that until either: (i) the firm communicates that you won’t be getting an offer, or (ii) you communicate to the firm they’re no longer your first choice. 

More broadly speaking, it seems like the firm did behaved perfectly appropriately here. A student informed them that they were his or her first choice, and the firm signalled that the student was a strong candidate who may get an offer but wasn’t guaranteed to get one. As things shook out, OP didn’t get an offer.

I’m not sure why OP (and others in this thread) is under the impression that they didn’t get a response to their first choice language – from my perspective, it seems like they got a crystal clear response immediately after they used the words, and the firm provided another crystal clear response the next day in response to OP’s follow up.

[LMP]

Again, I don't want to mislead anyone and maybe I've done so accidentally.

I'll belatedly amended everything I've said above by saying that I have only my own limited experience with the recurit. I don't hire people and I don't know best practices or anything akin to them. So if anyone is reading this and looking for advice, the actual lawyers here probably have the right of it.

But, in my experience during the recruit there are times when firms, even those you've said are your first choice, remove you from consideration but don't communicate that fact explicitly.

Times when a firm gives people you know a second interview but you nothing. Or when they tell you to "watch your inbox for an indication tonight" and nothing arrives. 

That was the situation I was trying to describe. And in those situations I, and again I'm speaking just for myself, don't see an issue with telling a different firm they're your first choice. And while you can certianly contact them to inform them "hey, you aren't my first choice anymore" I don't think that's nesscary (and as another user said, it does make you seem a bit petulant). 

 

[Bob Jones]

5 hours ago, Riverdale said:

I was called back to day 3 by a firm. So I sent my first choice to the HR people and my host at 8:00 pm on Tuesday. However, I did not get any reply. Even after the day 3's interview, they still did not reply to my first choice message directly, but just said something like "we still have positive impressions on you. You did really great. We are going to make a decision in the afternoon". I still did not know if I should revoke my first choice.  

Until noon on Wednesday, I called and wrote a follow-up email to the HR people to "get more information", but again, no response. Then, one person (my last interviewer) got back to me and said that they were seriously considering me, but they could not say anything about my first-choice. It would be generally prudent if I keep my options open. Until then, I was sure I was just on the waitlist. 

I felt bad about their delay of response. If they told me in the day 2 night or even during the day 3's interview, I would still have sometime to switch my first choice to another employer. I also reflected on myself: perhaps, my mistake was that I did not "interpret" their "lack of response" correctly as a negative sign for Day 2.

I was wondering: is it OK or normal for firms to not get back to you in a reasonable time after you first-choiced them? 

 

I ended up receiving a great suprise offer from an employer which I think it is better than my first-choice firm. But I felt there are so much inbalance of bargainging power for students during the in-firm "mind game". I understand firms want the best talents and so they want to keep you on the hook until the last minutes. However, students take much greater risks. 

No offence but I think you need a serious reality check. You’re applying for a summer job. That’s it. They’re a giant law firm (presumably), with hundreds of active files at any given time and millions of dollars flowing from clients. You’re also one of dozens of applicants for a summer job. They’re going to take time to make a decision. If it’s been 1-2 weeks I could see the logic of maybe sending a polite follow up, but less than 24 hours later? You’re not the President, you’re a law student with literally no skills as a lawyer (yet, you definitely will develop skills as a lawyer but at this stage you’re getting paid to learn) and not exactly top priority. Humble yourself a little and be flexible. 

[shibainuofthenorth]

2 hours ago, Asian Jim said:

To be fair the guidelines are somewhat of a joke. Almost everyone I knew in Vancouver who received offers from biglaw firms were given language by the recruiters that was as good as an express intention to make an offer. Most recruiters said something along the lines of "You can rest easy tonight ..." when a candidate asked about their standing.

Also, I don't think OP is wrong to be frustrated about the processes of the OCIs. In any other field it is extremely rare to be put in a position where you are given exploding job offers from a singular interview period that happens at the exact same time where you have to say things like "first choice" to a singular firm to secure a job and that language means so much to the firms (some top firms in Toronto incited first choice language from my friends and promptly rejected them when they were not given one). Meaning if you are unable to secure a job from your "first choice" firm, your chances at all other firms are significantly reduced so it matters so much to not waste your first choice on a firm that may not hire you, especially when all the firms are p much the same to one another. The firms put so much emphasis on the "first choice" language that candidates are unable to seriously consider other firms and must commit to a firm and hope that the firm likes them back, and most firms know this so the "first choice" language is often returned or the recruiter makes it clear about their intentions if the candidate is not seriously being considered, so it would be ideal for this process to happen quite promptly.

At the end of the day, I agree that the firms have no obligations to help OP out by replying quickly and I think OP should have definitely revoked his first choice and moved along quickly themselves to salvage their chances at another firm. But the entire process is extremely stressful for the candidates for no good reason and simply absurd. In the US, firms give non-exploding offers to successful candidates so they can weigh out their options and make an informed decision. Whereas in Canada, candidates have to play silly little mind games to secure a position in an environment where firms are not even correctly following the guidelines. But it is what it is.

A very good observation on the exploding offer + short interview period + important "first choice" language combo. Having worked and hired previously in both biotech and tech industries myself, I find the summer recruiting process in law is still a bit puzzling. Without getting to the detail of things, I also believe that the key problem produced by the current process is that candidates may bet on the wrong firm with their first choice and actually end up going nowhere even though they are qualified for the other positions. I don't have any stats so it is just a personal observation but I do know this happens to people at least every other year. Yes, not all firms care about first-choice, but to my knowledge a very good number of them do.

So in absence of a real ranking and pairing system, it definitely makes things easier for students if firms respond them promptly. And this really is not an unreasonable thing to do too. At least at my firm it has not cost us any additional resources really, because there is a team dedicated to recruitment during the week, which I know is the same case at most mid-large sized firms. We also never had trouble filling in all positions with competent students despite responding to students on a timely manner without contravening the guideline, as far as I know of.

In conclusion, the system right now is as such right now, so maybe OP could have got more informed with process to save him/herself some frustration, but this does not mean the system is perfect. Some firms are definitely experimenting, for better or worse. I am no expert on hiring but just with the lateral comparisons I do intuitively think things can probably be changed a bit.

Edited November 13, 2022 by shibainuofthenorth

[Jaggers]

7 hours ago, Riverdale said:

But I felt there are so much inbalance of bargainging power for students during the in-firm "mind game". I understand firms want the best talents and so they want to keep you on the hook until the last minutes. However, students take much greater risks. 

This is pretty much it. Students are fungible commodities to firms. Maybe they'd love to hire the future U of T gold medalist, but if they don't manage that, there are 600 other students lined up, all of whom may be just as good. There is definitely an imbalance of bargaining power, arising from the fact that one side of the bargain holds all the cards.

The rules are there to shift a small part of the bargaining power, but they can't fundamentally alter it. The 24 hour rule itself is a pretty major shift.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Jaggers

[Ohshmagoda]

When I went through the process it would have been very taboo to revoke a “first choice” declaration because you are insufficiently satisfied that it had your intended effect of procuring an offer. It sounds like that has become a tactic in the messages above. If I was advising a friend, I would encourage them not to revoke a “first choice” declaration, and to be very thoughtful about how it’s deployed. I guess if the firm that was “first choiced” unequivocally tells the applicant that they will not be receiving an offer, the applicant could then honestly tell a different firm that they would immediately accept an offer upon receiving one. I think the other posters above were right in feeling that there is something icky about walking around town telling multiple firms that they are your “first choice”. The students that navigate the process well are able to communicate their interest to their second choice firms effectively - the “first choice” card isn’t the only way of expressing love for a firm and offers are extended to applicants that express interest shy of a “first choice” declaration all of the time.

Complaints about firms behaving poorly within the process are totally fair (even if I don’t think the OP’s case is a good example). With respect to the broader fundamental features of the process, I will acknowledge that it has flaws and there are conversations that should be had about how it could be improved. I hope it is nevertheless obvious to the people above complaining about “exploding offers” that the absence of the current structured process would result in different problems and that there are many benefits to students from the status quo. A specific time for offers is set so that students aren’t locked into jobs weeks/months before they have an opportunity to understand all their options. I note that there are live threads on this forum about students who are unhappy that they have accepted jobs outside the formal recruit and are now struggling with whether they may renege their accepted jobs (the advice is no).

Any process will appear unfair because, in most circumstances, the applicants that make it to the in-firm interview stage are students that are hireable and could be good lawyers. In this cycle I met a single applicant during in-firms that left a negative impression and there were good candidates that didn’t get an offer. 

[GoBigOrGoHome]

I think that there needs to be some kind of software system that every firm puts in all of their desire candidates and ranks them. Identifying how many they will hire. At 8am the following day, offers are released and candidates either accept, deny, or hold the offer.
 

Firms don’t find out right away what happened but as people deny offers, others are offered the now vacant spot. 
 

24 hours later the firm finds out who they ended up with. They would need to make sure that the people that they have listed as individuals to extend offers to are actually people they want to work with. 
 

This would allow people with their first choice to deny all other offers and make them available to the next person. For those that didn’t receive the offer they wanted, can decide to wait it out. 
 

Maybe the system even lets you know where in the waitlist you are and how many positions they are hiring for. How many are confirmed, etc. 

 

Something has to be better than firms making phone calls to people and people hoping they aren’t already on the phone when their firm of choice calls. It also removes the pressure of the human being on the other side. 
 

 

[Pecan Boy]

3 minutes ago, GoBigOrGoHome said:

Something has to be better than firms making phone calls to people and people hoping they aren’t already on the phone when their firm of choice calls.

I take your overall point, but this is not what currently happens. If your second-choice firm calls first, you simply tell them you'll call them back shortly, and then wait a few minutes to see if your first-choice firm calls (or be more proactive and call them to see what's up). You're never obligated to accept an offer from a firm simply because they called first.

[reaperlaw]

2 hours ago, GoBigOrGoHome said:

I think that there needs to be some kind of software system that every firm puts in all of their desire candidates and ranks them. Identifying how many they will hire. At 8am the following day, offers are released and candidates either accept, deny, or hold the offer.
 

Firms don’t find out right away what happened but as people deny offers, others are offered the now vacant spot. 
 

24 hours later the firm finds out who they ended up with. They would need to make sure that the people that they have listed as individuals to extend offers to are actually people they want to work with. 
 

This would allow people with their first choice to deny all other offers and make them available to the next person. For those that didn’t receive the offer they wanted, can decide to wait it out. 
 

Maybe the system even lets you know where in the waitlist you are and how many positions they are hiring for. How many are confirmed, etc. 

 

Something has to be better than firms making phone calls to people and people hoping they aren’t already on the phone when their firm of choice calls. It also removes the pressure of the human being on the other side. 
 

 

It has been suggested before that the LSO moves to what some co-op programs/engineering recruits do and create a system where students rank firms and firms rank students, but of course, don't think that's ever gone anywhere. A now retired head of student recruitment at a Toronto firm who I knew quite well wanted to move to this system, but it didn't sound like their colleagues saw the benefit from a firm's perspective. 

[easttowest]

Yeah, I’m struggling to find a benefit for firms in that system.

[Turtles]

2 hours ago, easttowest said:

Yeah, I’m struggling to find a benefit for firms in that system.

IDK, it does seem like firms waste a lot of time trying to solicit expressions of interest from individuals they identify as top candidates, bringing out lots of senior people, hosting events, and wasting everyone's time, which could be entirely avoided if they didn't need to game to whom they make offers to ensure they fill their class with strong candidates. I've also heard of a couple different firms this time around get burned by situations where someone accepted an offer at 5pm and then rescinded it later, forcing them to try to find someone who will take it after many of the competitive candidates were already locked up, or in one firm's case, take the L and come up short. That 5pm scramble seems to be more common than we assume.

From my rudimentary understanding it seems the major benefits of status quo are (1) cheap (no special $$$ software), (2) they have control over alternates such that they can maintain diversity of schools / academic backgrounds / practice group interests / etc to keep their class balanced, and (3) it's how it's always been done. None of that is particularly hard to overcome, cheap software that provides significant control is not hard, but nobody wants to be the first firm to change and change would probably need to come from the LSO.

[easttowest]

I wouldn’t be so quick to write off (2) as easy to overcome. And that’s where I fail to see the benefit. 

[Pantalaimon]

Re: (3) I think Calgary at one point did a few recruits via match system like medical residency, which is essentially what's being proposed. The firms hated it for various reasons but I'm not clear exactly why. I wouldn't expect it'll ever come back.

[VIPigeon]

3 hours ago, Pantalaimon said:

Re: (3) I think Calgary at one point did a few recruits via match system like medical residency, which is essentially what's being proposed. The firms hated it for various reasons but I'm not clear exactly why. I wouldn't expect it'll ever come back.

Vancouver did the same. I was told by a partner at a firm there that the firms didn’t like it because they wanted to be able to call up candidates to sway them, or something along those lines.